14Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOSUGE et al. (WO 2020/021775 A1, US 2021/0320307 A1 is used as an English equivalent) in view of Freluche et al. (US 5,525,437) and Kuroda et al. (US 5,354,629)
As to claim 1, Kosuge et al. discloses a lithium primary battery comprising (title):
an outer can (9-cylindrical cell can);
a wound-electrode assembly accommodated in the outer can (figure 1 1, 2, 3 make the electrode group [0045]); and
a non-aqueous electrolyte accommodated in the outer can [0048],
wherein the wound-electrode assembly includes:
a positive electrode having a sheet shape (1);
a negative electrode having a sheet shape having a first main surface and a second main surface opposed to each other (2); and
a separator (3) provided between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, the positive electrode, the negative electrode, and the separator being stacked and wound together [0045],
the positive electrode includes a positive electrode mixture containing manganese dioxide [0011],
the negative electrode includes at least one selected from the group consisting of metallic lithium and metallic lithium containing lithium alloy [0011],
the first main surface of the negative electrode and an entirety of the second main surface of the negative electrode face the positive electrode [0011],
a total area S of the first main surface and the second main surface of the negative electrode satisfies 250 cm.sup.2≤S≤700 cm.sup.2 ([0011] discloses that the an area where the positive electrode and the negative electrode face each other is 250 cm2 or more and 350 cm2 or less, thus overlapping the claimed range) ,
an outer diameter D of the outer can satisfies 25 mm≤D≤37 mm, [0065] discloses the diameter is 25.4 mm) , and
However Kosuge et al. does not disclose
a thickness Tp of the positive electrode satisfies 0.8 mm≤Tp≤1.4 mm, or
a distance C between the outer can and the wound-electrode assembly satisfies 0.3 mm≤C≤1.0 mm.
Freluche et al. discloses a primary battery with a wound cell and a duct 4 between the spiral electrodes and the casing. Fleluche et al. discloses that the duct is used expel air while the liquid electrolyte is being filed. While Fleluche et al. does not disclose numerical value, Fleche et al. discloses that the duct allows for the electrolyte to be filled faster (col. 3 lines 52-col 4 lines 6). Thus the size would be a result affected variable to allow the air to escape and fill the battery case with electrolyte.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to include the gap between the electrode group and the casing to allow air to escape and fill the electrolyte faster into the can.
Modified Kosuge et al. discloses the battery as discussed above but does not disclose the thickness of the positive electrode.
Kuroda discloses a battery with a with a MnO2 with a 1.15 mm thick (col. 8 lines 5-7).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this case, the thickness of the cathode is adjusted to adjust the capacity of the battery.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to include the thickness of the cathode to be 1.15 mm thick because this is a known quantity for a lithium/MnO2 battery.
The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious. (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
As to claim 4. Kosuge et al. discloses the lithium primary battery according to claim 1, wherein a density d.sub.p of the positive electrode mixture satisfies 2.6 g/cm3 ≤ dp ≤ 3.3 g/cm3 ([0047] 2.5-3.2g/cm3 overlaps the claimed range).
As to claim 5. Kosuge et al. discloses the lithium primary battery according to claim 1, wherein the separator is made of a microporous film having a thickness greater than or equal to 30 μm to less than or equal to 50 μm ([0061] 38 μm for the separator) .
As to claim 6. Kosuge et al. discloses the lithium primary battery according to claim 1, further comprising a sealing element sealing (8) an opening of the outer can [0049]. The limitation of “wherein the sealing element is laser-welded to the outer can” is considered by product by process limitation. The product-by-process limitations of claim 6 are not given patentable weight since the courts have held that patentability is based on a product itself, even if the prior art product is made by a different process (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 1985). Moreover, a product-by-process limitation is held to be obvious if the product is similar to a prior art product (In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685, and In re Fessman, 180 USPQ 324). Claim 6 as written does not distinguish the product of the instant application from the product of the prior art.
As to claim 7. Kosuge et al. discloses the lithium primary battery according to claim 1, wherein the outer can is made of stainless steel [0048].
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosuge et al. (WO 2020/021775 A1, US 2021/0320307 A1 is used as an English equivalent), Freluche et al. (US 5,525,437) and Kuroda et al. (US 5,354,629), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Berkowitz et al. (US 2008/0220316 A1)
As to claim 2. Kosuge et al. discloses the lithium primary battery according to claim 1, wherein a thickness Tc of the outer can satisfies 0.3 mm ≤ Tc ≤ 0.45 mm. (the inner diameter is 24.8, the outer diameter is 25.4 [0065] thus the thickness of the can is 0.6 mm, but it does not fall in the claimed range of 0.3-0.45mm.)
Berkowitz et al. discloses a lithium primary cell and teaches a casing 70 can have a typical thickness of from 0.1 -0.5mm. [0066]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have the wall thickness between 0.1-0.5 mm because these are known thicknesses of casings for lithium primary batteries.
The use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods or products) in the same way is likely to be obvious (see MPEP § 2143, C.).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosuge et al. (WO 2020/021775 A1, US 2021/0320307 A1 is used as an English equivalent) Freluche et al. (US 5,525,437) and Kuroda et al. (US 5,354,629), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishimura et al. (US 2021/0384526 A1).
As to claim 3, Kosuge et al. discloses the lithium primary battery according to claim 1, but not wherein a capacity Cp of the positive electrode and a capacity Cn of the negative electrode satisfy Cp ≤ Cn.
Nishimura et al. discloses a lithium primary battery and discloses the negative electrode capacity is greater than the positive electrode capacity [0014]. Nishimura teaches that this helps secure a high energy density [0014].
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to have the negative electrode capacity is greater than the positive electrode capacity because this helps secure a high energy density.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fujita (US 2002/0090544 A1) which discloses having a jelly roll with a pre-set clearance between the electrode unit and the cell casing so that (B+C)/2A, where A, B and C denote the inner diameter of the cell casing, the maximum outer diameter of the electrode unit and the minimum outer diameter of the electrode unit, respectively, is equal to or more than 0.954 and equal to or less than 0.988.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA J LAIOS whose telephone number is (571)272-9808. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Barbara Gilliam can be reached at 571-272-1330. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Maria Laios/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1727
Prosecution Insights